The Director Municipal ... vs Sri K M Manjunath
2022 Latest Caselaw 12414 Kant

                           1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
                        PRESENT
              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

           WRIT APPEAL NO.565/2022 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE DIRECTOR
       MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
       SRI M. VISHWESHWARAIH
       TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDAKR
       VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 011.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
       CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.      ...APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUA, AGA)

AND:

1.     SRI K.M. MANJUNATH
       S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       OCC: BILL COLLECTOR
       (TAX COLLECTOR)
       TOWN MUNICIPALITY
       CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
       CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

2.     THE COMMISSIONER
       TOWN MUNICIPALITY
       CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
       CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.       ...RESPONDENTS

(BBMP SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO QUASH
                               2

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/03/2020, PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.15481/2019 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IS
ILLEGAL.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019.

2. Heard the learned Additional Government

Advocate and also perused the material available on

record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are, the first respondent was appointed as a Bill Collector

with the Gram Panchayath under a resolution dated

19.07.1994. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayath was

merged with the Town Municipality and ever since the

merger, the first respondent continued in employment

with the second respondent - Municipality. The first

respondent had made a request for regularization of

service, which was rejected and therefore, he had

approached this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was

disposed of on 09.04.2012 and the matter was remanded

with a direction to consider the case of the first

respondent afresh. The prayer of first respondent for

regularization was once again rejected by the competent

authority and challenging the same, he had approached

this Court in W.P.No.39882/2012 which was disposed of

by this Court on 08.11.2012 and the matter was once

again remanded with a direction to consider the case of

the first respondent for regularization in accordance with

law and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs.

M.L.Kesari1. The prayer of first respondent for

regularization was rejected for the third time by the

competent authority and challenging the same he had

approached this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019 which was

disposed off by the learned Single Judge vide the order

impugned with a direction to first and third respondents

in the writ petition to consider the case of the first

respondent herein afresh. Being aggrieved by the same,

respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition have

preferred this intra court appeal.

AIR 2010 SC 2587

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the

appointment of first respondent was not against a

sanctioned post and therefore, his case cannot be

considered for regularization. She submits that the

learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect

of the matter and erred in disposing the writ petition with

a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the

first respondent for regularization.

5. The first respondent was appointed as a Bill

Collector in the year 1994 with the Gram Panchayath and

after merger of the Gram Panchayath with third

respondent - Town Municipality, his service was

continued with the third respondent and since his prayer

for regularization was rejected he had approached this

Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was disposed of by

this Court on 09.04.2012 and in paragraph No.3 of the

said order it was observed as follows:

" A reading of the impugned endorsement do no specify the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization. The material on record discloses that

petitioner had put in service of more than 17 years without any break. In terms of the law declared by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (AIR 2006 SC 1806) and subsequently clarified in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587), the services of the petitioner are to be regularized. Further the respondent Government issued several orders from time to time regularizing the services of similary situated employees. While issuing the impugned endorsement the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Government Orders are not taken into consideration".

6. Further, in operative portion of the order at

paragraph (iii) it was observed as under:

"(iii) The matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with the test laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587) and also in the Government Orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any even not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order".

7. Though there was a specific direction by this

Court to consider the case of first respondent for

regularization in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the M.L.Kesari's case (supra), the

competent authority once again rejected the request of

first respondent for regularization on the ground that he

had not completed ten years of service and the said

order was challenged by the first respondent in

W.P.No.39882/2012 which was allowed by this Court vide

the order dated 08.11.2012 taking into consideration the

earlier direction issued by this Court to consider the case

of first respondent in the light of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L.Kesari's case (supra).

Inspite of such repeated directions given by this Court,

for the third time, the competent authority once again

rejected the prayer of first respondent for regularization

on the ground that first respondent falls short of criteria

stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi

& Others2. The learned Single Judge taking into

consideration the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.37937/2011 disposed of on 09.04.2012 and in

W.P.No.39882/2012 disposed of on 08.11.2012, wherein

the competent authority was directed to consider the

case of first respondent for regularization in the light of

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

M.L.Kesari (supra) has disposed of the writ petition vide

AIR 2006 SC 1806

the order impugned with direction to first and third

respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of

first respondent herein for regularization within four

weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the

order.

8. Undisputedly, the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.37937/2011 and W.P.No.39882/2012 wherein

this Court had directed the competent authority to

consider the case of the first respondent for

regularization in the light of the judgment of M.L.Kesari

(supra) were not challenged and the same had attained

finality. The appellants - competent authority are

therefore, bound to comply with the said order and the

case of the first respondent is required to be considered

for regularization as directed by this Court in the earlier

rounds of litigation in the light of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L.Kesari's case (supra).

Though the said orders are staring at the competent

authority, the request of first respondent for

regularization was rejected for the third time by the

competent authority on the ground that his case falls

short of the criteria as stipulated by the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra).

It is in this background, the learned Single Judge has

directed the competent authority to reconsider the case

of first respondent for regularization and we do not find

any irregularity or illegality in the said order which is

impugned in this intra court writ appeal. Accordingly, we

find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is

therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE NMS